What is RAW?

[Wiggle]

The resolution options on my dSLR include RAW. What is it, and when/why would I use it?

 

[skyscanr]

means it is uncrompressed higest quilty setting. if you have a very large mem card use it often

 

[timned88]

means it is uncrompressed higest quilty setting. if you have a very large mem card use it often

Sorry but that's not really correct. Camera RAW is a format that needs to be 'developed' in a computer, sort of like developing 35mm slide film. The advantages that you get are:
change white balance after the shot is taken
higher bit depth to give better color
ability to increase or decrease exposure/contract/brightness, etc. without destroying original image

Yes, you can do all of this with a .jpeg image, however you are altering the original data and destroying the original image. RAW is a lossless format that can be altered infinite times, as you use the RAW to create you jpeg.

 

[boBQuincy]

RAW is compressed, but with a lossless method so the full file size can be recovered intact.

RAW delivers a full 12 bits of range, up to16 times that of the 8 bit jpg.

RAW is the image *before* the camera's internal processor applies destructive changes such as: white balance, exposure compression, data compression, saturation adjustments, and sharpening. All these *remove* data from the image, therefore RAW is the best image that the camera can deliver, period.

The camera creates the jpg from the RAW, whether you select to keep the RAW or not. The jpg *always* contains less data than the RAW and the jpg *always* can be obtained later from the RAW. Most dSLRs can provide both RAW and jpg together if you choose (I usually select small jpgs for viewing and emailing).

Why would you use RAW?
If the scene has a greater brightness range than 8 bits can capture (most scenes do).
If you might want to adjust the white balance after the fact (works better with 12 bits than with 8).
If you prefer to sharpen the image instead of let the camera do it (gives better results).

In other words, the only reasons not to use RAW is if you do not have the memory card space OR if you must shoot faster than the camera can write the larger files to the memory card (rare).


boB

 

[tigger795]

Here is a link to a good explanation of RAW:

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf

--
Randy

 

[Kelly Grannell]

In terms of how much you can fudge around with the picture you've taken with RAW vs JPEG, it's like comparing taking pictures using regular film stock (negatives) vs slide (positive). Not much you can do if you take pictures with slide film but there is more wiggle room to fix it later if you use RAW

PS: all my concert pictures that you've seen were taken using JPEG with no post processing, so it's more than possible to take archive quality pictures using JPEG.

 

[ducklite]

This is the original photo taken in RAW:

After I brought it into Photoshop and played around with the histogram, saturation, and brightness, it looks like this:

Pretty dramatic difference! It can be blown up to 20x30 and not look "Photoshopped" because what I was playing with was the original binary code as opposed to the compressed .jpg format.

I shoot a combination of RAW and .jpg depending on many factors. In this case I had shot most of the day .jpg, ans switched to RAW for this band (Mudvayne, who for the record I don't like) because frankly I was hot, tired, filthy, and had been shooting all day and simply wanted to take the lazy way out.

For generic photgraphy, particularly in the daylight, there's really no reason to shoot in RAW. Where it comes in handy is lower lighting situations.

Anne

 

[Kelly Grannell]

but then again if you do it right from the get go, you don't need to photoshopped it just like most of my pics. (I know, I know, in extreme conditions such as yours I would also take RAW just in case, but more than 99% of my shots are all in JPEG).

 

[ducklite]

but then again if you do it right from the get go, you don't need to photoshopped it just like most of my pics. (I know, I know, in extreme conditions such as yours I would also take RAW just in case, but more than 99% of my shots are all in JPEG).

Like I said, I had been shooting .jpg all day, and switched to RAW for the last two bands. I was too tired to care about "doing it right" any longer, KWIM?

BTW--that was one of the last shots I took of that two day 20-some band adventure into H-E-double hockey sticks.

And I've got one to top getting hit in the head with a shoe--how about a dead cow festering in the field next to where the show was being held the first day? So pleasant...NOT! I think that one probably takes the cake on all of my "war stories."

Anne

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Like I said, I had been shooting .jpg all day, and switched to RAW for the last two bands. I was too tired to care about "doing it right" any longer, KWIM?

If one is too tired to care about doing it right, then maybe one should switch career.

 

[ducklite]

If one is too tired to care about doing it right, then maybe one should switch career.

I wasn't shooting on assignment at that point, I had already taken care of "business." I was shooting for the heck of it. Half the people I was working with that day had already packed it in by then.

And I did "do it right" by shooting RAW. I used the technology available to me so all I really had to worry about at the moment was composition--which as you can see, was just fine.

And trust me, my career is just fine, thank you. I sold three photo's from last weekend to various labels.

Anne

 

[Kelly Grannell]

just three.... okay, you're a big success then.

 

[ducklite]

just three.... okay, you're a big success then.

What the hell is your problem? I sold three to labels, and I've got several others that are going to magazines. Are you saying that's not enough? For me it was just fine. Not that it's any of your business to criticize. I don't see you posting much of your work, just messing around with other people's without their asking you to, and criticizing when no one asked for your opinion to begin with.

When was the last time your work graced the cover of a magazine? I've had three in the past three months.

I've tried to patient with your patronizing, holier-than-thou, egotistical attitude, but frankly I, and many other have grown increasingly tired of it.

For the record, I don't make a living as a photographer. It's a p/t thing. A hobby that pays me, quite well actually. If that mean's I'm not worthy of your time--good riddance.

Anne

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Actually, it's your attitude of keep saying that every other photographers' jobs are easy because they are not taking concert pictures, your overprotective nature of your work, putting down people (I still remember YOU put me down because I was talking about product photography and YOU put another photographer's down because he was doing weddings).

Hey, coming in with a press creentials and then peddling your pictures to labels does not make you a concert photographer, that makes you a journalistic photographer that concentrates in concert pictures (nothing's wrong with that). A Concert photographer is a photographer which a label or an artist hire to cover their concert exclusively.

The last time my work graced on the cover? it was last week at Toronto Star.

 

[ducklite]

Actually, it's your attitude of keep saying that every other photographers' jobs are easy because they are not taking concert pictures,

Actually, that's not what I said. I said that working in the generally controlled environment of a catologue shoot is generally much physically and mentally easier than in a photopit at a metal show with a riot breaking out around you. Technically speaking, catologue work is very demanding. Color must be precise and if you are shooting food that adds an entirely new dimension. I would never say that technically my work is more difficult, it's not as long as you've got the proper tools to deal with fast moving targets and poor lighting. But from a physical and mental standpoint, it's generally more difficult. Dead cows and all.

your overprotective nature of your work

I'm not the only person who has not been happy with you taking liberties with their work. If your advice or opinion was asked for, fine. But you have a lot of nerve otherwise just taking it upon yourself to remove a copyright from someone's work and then reposting it--that was just plain old downright unprofessional and rude. I've seen you edit a lot of peoples work without them asking you to, or even asking for opinions on it. And frankly often the original was more appealing to me--although that's a subjective call.

putting down people (I still remember YOU put me down because I was talking about product photography and YOU put another photographer's down because he was doing weddings).

Excuse me, I don't put people down for shooting weddings. Not my cup of tea, I don't do them. But if that's what you like to do, or need to do to make a living, I wouldn't put you down for it. I've seen some wedding photography that was exquisite, it's an art form unto itself when done right. Unfortunately there are more bad/cliche photographers out there shooting weddings that true masters of the art.

Hey, coming in with a press creentials and then peddling your pictures to labels does not make you a concert photographer, that makes you a journalistic photographer that concentrates in concert pictures (nothing's wrong with that). A Concert photographer is a photographer which a label or an artist hire to cover their concert exclusively.

I do both. I do for hire work for artists (hired by the label or management) as well as journalistic photography. I do'nt feel the need to come on here and specify which I was doing for each shoot. That's why some of the links to photo's on my web site are labeled "contact me for access," because they were taken on contract for a particular artist. And a lot of other work doesn't even appear on the list because of contractual stipulations.

The last time my work graced on the cover? it was last week at Toronto Star.

Congratulations!

Anne